New opportunity to save the woods!! Deadline Friday 23rd

[HopOne]

Re SINC designation, you can look this up yourself:

http://www.gigl.org.uk/online/

Am not on a device that makes it easy to post direct links but you will see there are a lot of local designations including the ones I have referred to.

It is not sustainable to grab more burial space, that is areas not in use for burial, each time that more burial space is needed. This has been the history of burial at these sites. It would be far preferable, and sustainable, to use out of borough space designed specifically for such use. I was merely suggesting that Southwark could have reused the existing burial space years ago and this could have avoided important tree and habitat loss. This didn't happen due to their own mismanagement, by their own admission. Sadly, it seems that the management, or at the very least the communication of it, has not improved, so should we really be trusting this exercise unchallenged?

I am very happy to be challenged but, let's be clear. The constant accusations of lying on this thread have amounted to a smear campaign. I hope everyone is big enough to move on from this. I appreciate your efforts in this regard penguin68.

[BrandNewGuy]

Its SINC designation is as a "Site of Borough Importance (Grade I)". "Grade 1 SINC woods" is not its designation. Sorry to nitpick, but these details are important in the context of designation, protection and conservation.

[HopOne]

That is a sub-designation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_of_Nature_Conservation_Interest

[Penguin68]

Apologies HopOne - it is shown as designated, though it is worth noting that (1) the whole area of COC is so designated, not just the area which stimulated the protest, so clearly a maintained and well managed cemetery also fits this bill (and hence a future maintained cemetery would as well), and that (2) the 'wild' area is described as 'scrub' - which is exactly the words I first used to describe it.

You should also note that the law (in London) does not allow re-use of cemetery space where burials are less than 75 years old - so that no space with burials which post date 1941 could yet be re-used for new burials - much of the maintained area has burials which post-date that year - it is the un-maintained area which has the earlier burials which could be re-used.

And the accusations of 'lying' have been mainly applied (and correctly) to a single poster no longer on this thread. However those too closely allied to his particular strident campaign and its flawed arguments should understand that they are very likely to be tarred with that same brush, guilty by association.

I would entirely agree that this whole problem has been precipitated and exacerbated by Southwark's very poor record of care for the cemeteries in the last decade of the last century into the first decade of this. This neglect is unpardonable.

[BrandNewGuy]

HopOne Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That is a sub-designation:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_of_Nature_Conse

> rvation_Interest

There's no reference to "Grade 1 SINC woods" there.

[HopOne]

BrandNewGuy,

You need to get this from the context:

"In some areas, the designation is subdivided, or additional, more local designations are also used. For example, in Greater London SINCs are divided into the following grades:[3]

Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation

Site of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation (Grade I and Grade II)

Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation"

Penguin68,

No worries. I do not think that is a clear assumption, you need to have a mind for what actually gives the designation in the first place. It is true that the cemetery, in addition to the woodland (scrub is a type of that, it grows up, and the council's own docs draw a distinction between what they refer as scrub and significant trees on both sites), can have scientific value. The question is to what extent is this diminished by removing the parts that harbour the greatest diversity of wildlife, i.e. native woodland or scrub if you must call it that!

As for the law point, it is interesting to note that the act (IIRC 1974?) in question specifically excludes these Camberwell cemeteries. However, your point is right to a degree. There are plenty of graves that could be reused now, it is just that the council would need to research where these are as they didn't record it! Still, probably cheaper than what they are doing.

As for SSW, I used to be sceptical myself of some of their strategies. Having met them, I realise that they are actually well thought out and chime almost totally with my own views. The devil is in the detail and I recommend attending one of their meetings, as I did, to find out more. Where I do agree with you is that I think the communication of this has been poor sometimes. Am not saying that I could do better and I appreciate the energy they have put into this.

[paulino]

I think it's been about 5+ years since I logged on to EDF, but I wanted to specifically go out of my way to just mention that fact that over the last few weeks I have been initially bemused but latterly flabbergasted by the campaign from Save Southwark Woods and Lewis Schaffer. It's an absolutely reprehensible campaign and some people posting on this forum ought to be ashamed of themselves. Part of me hopes that this thread is an elaborate parody or that most of the SSW supporters are in fact sock puppets operated by Lewis, as I find it scary that there could be so many locals with such a dearth of critical faculties. 'Funeral for the trees' indeed.

[BrandNewGuy]

HopOne Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> BrandNewGuy,

>

> You need to get this from the context:

> "In some areas, the designation is subdivided, or

> additional, more local designations are also used.

> For example, in Greater London SINCs are divided

> into the following grades:[3]

>

> Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature

> Conservation

> Site of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation

> (Grade I and Grade II)

> Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation"

I'm aware of that. Still no mentions of "Grade 1 SINC woods".

[kiera]

Penguin68 Wrote: (extract)

------

You suggest that the council should reuse ?the

currently used space that they have for local

> burial? ? I am not sure what this means ? they

> intend only to reuse space in the existing

> cemeteries for burials ? I assume that you wish

> this to be restricted to ?locals? ? whatever that

> means, presumably you would insist on a residence

> test both for the deceased and those arranging the

> funerals?

The council already insist on a residence test for both the deceased and the person arranging the funeral.

[Penguin68]

The council already insist on a residence test for both the deceased and the person arranging the funeral.

Isn't this because there are reduced fees for residents? I had thought that non-residents were still allowed to be buried (this was a ssw complaint, that the cemeteries would be full of foreigners) but at a higher cost. I was assuming that HopOne was wanting exclusive burial rights for locals only. In which case someone who had lived all their lives in the borough, but had moved out to die in a Home outside the borough, might be refused burial rights.

[Loz]

HopOne Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> BrandNewGuy,

>

> You need to get this from the context:

> "In some areas, the designation is subdivided, or additional, more local designations are also used.

> For example, in Greater London SINCs are divided into the following grades:[3]

>

> Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation

> Site of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation (Grade I and Grade II)

> Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation"

It's worth noting that the granter of such designation is the council itself, to which they say that its importance comes mostly from its location and extent as an area (11.8 ha) of semi natural open space within an otherwise built up residential area, which it will continue as. Even after the works, it will remain "Site of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation (Grade I)".

[Newton]

> let's not extrapolate that out to him being some sort of monster roaming the countryside.

Hi Loz, please don't take this as an personal attack, because it's not meant as such. Please _do not_ feel sorry for Lewis. In cases like this there's an harasser and there's a victim. There's really no shades of grey. Unfortunately, it's part of human nature to perceive someone calling out the harasser as an attack in itself.

The thing is, people like this aren't actually uncommon. They're often charming, but they've learned that they can cross the line and that the heavens don't fall down on them. Everything I've read on this thread is _way_ too familiar to me, sad to say. So no, he's not roaming the countryside, but I do think people like that make life worse for everyone and they're best excluded.

Anyway, I'll let everyone return to their discussion.

[Loz]

And you've based that on three tweets? Well, I'm glad you're not prone to a quick over-reaction. Some might say that someone saying that someone "deserves to have children spit in your face on the street" hardly makes them a bastion of pleasantness, joy and enlightenment. But you obviously have strong feelings on this, for reasons I don't know as yet.

Look, if you have read the thread you'll know that I have less time for Lewis than just about anyone on here, but let's not jump to conclusions. Lewis is obviously way too passionate and he completely crossed a line, but let's not expel him from society just yet.

Very little in life actually is black and white: most things are actually shades of grey. Some dark, some light - but shades of grey they are.

PS And stop making me defend Lewis. It makes me feel strange and uncomfortable.

[edhistory]

HopOne Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Literalists of the world unite! It is a shame

> that the same approach doesn't extend to defining

> a wood :-)

>

> As already mentioned, edborders is stating the

> campaign aims. I sourced the specifics for you

> but the "printing, postage, materials" costs etc

> are in support of the campaign. Is that clear

> enough now?

The advertisement for the 14th February performance gives additional information about where the money will go.

==================

Save Southwark Woods Comedy Benefit

Saving the woods, graves and memories of the Camberwell Cemeteries, to rewild for 100 acres of Nature Reserves and 150 years of Londoners' history

With a special performance of Lewis Schaffer's brilliant 5 star Edinburgh show 'You Are Beautiful'

7.30pm Sunday 14th February

The Ivy House, 40 Stuart Road London SE15 3BE

?10 In advance ?12 On the door

New Yorker, Nunheader and Star of Resonance FM?s Nunhead American Radio Lewis Schaffer brings his brilliant 5 star Edinburgh comedy show to The Ivy House for a benefit gig for Save Southwark Woods, with a donation to London's independent arts radio station Resonance FM

Save Southwark Woods

Organiser of Save Southwark Woods Comedy Benefit

Community group fighting to save acres of nature conservation woods, tens of thousands of graves and 150 years of history at Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries - Southwark Woods, to make them 100 acres of Nature Reserves with respect for the dead and woods for the living.

[Penguin68]

Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries are (in total) 23.82 hectares (Old, 11.62, New 12.2), or 58.86 acres. In order to make a (new) 100 acre nature reserve some readers (and I hope supporters of ssw) are going to have to give up their back gardens for Lewis's aims to be met. Not me, I'm afraid.

[Newton]

> Some might say that someone saying that someone "deserves to have children spit in your face on the street" hardly makes them a bastion of pleasantness, joy and enlightenment.

Here's the problem with tone-policing: I can either express my legitimate anger and disgust at Lewis' behaviour, or I can moderate it at the cost of blunting my point. So what I said stands: his actions are disgusting

> And you've based that on three tweets?

It only takes one tweet to specify a woman's exact name, where to find her and link her to a subject a lot of people feel strongly about to your 2500 followers. That's the beauty of the internet (if you like harassing people).

> But you obviously have strong feelings on this, for reasons I don't know as yet.

I've spent a fair bit of time listening to the victims of internet harassment campaigns. It's one of the most disgusting things you can do that's unlikely to land you in jail.

> Very little in life actually is black and white: most things are actually shades of grey.

Yes, and unfortunately people who deal in black like to exploit that.

> PS And stop making me defend Lewis. It makes me feel strange and uncomfortable.

a) LOL and b) trust that feeling :)

[Loz]

Shooting yourself in the foot tweet of the day by SSW... "You know you're on to a winner when you got some serious haters.". They are, of course, talking about this thread, but it could be equally applied to the SSW and it's hated of Southwark Council.

Have SSW just inadvertently said the council is onto a winner here?

[Sue]

What I find weird is the way they turn people who disagree with their views and/or point out inaccuracies in their statements into "haters".

Quite interesting from a psychological viewpoint I suppose.

[Sue]

edhistory Wrote:

----------------------------------------------

>

>

> New Yorker, Nunheader and Star of Resonance FM?s

> Nunhead American Radio Lewis Schaffer brings his

> brilliant 5 star Edinburgh comedy show to The Ivy

> House for a benefit gig for Save Southwark Woods,

> with a donation to London's independent arts radio

> station Resonance FM

>

I hadn't noticed until it was pointed out to me that this benefit "for the woods" is also for a radio station.

That seems strange to say the least.

[Sue]

Lewis Schaffer has again posted my full name on Twitter.

Because he is banned from here he is now responding to my posts on here on Twitter, and again linking them to The Goose Is Out.

Please can anybody help.

Do you people defending him on here think that this continuing harassment is OK?

Because I don't.

I presume he is trying to bully me into stopping posting on here.

[EDAus]

Harassment of individuals in any way shape of form is wrong, full stop, no excuses.

Lewis choose his behaviour, he made a deliberate and calculated choice to to personally attack on the EDF:

* people for their occupation

* their alleged partner/marriage - to be clear it's 2016 some women have different opinions to our husbands, some people even find this refreshing!

* their alleged professional affiliations

The EDF community has spoken, Lewis's behaviour has been considered inappropriate and he has been banned. His actions determined this outcome he was warned by Admin and choose to deliberately ignore this.

He made a further conscious decision to hunt down one women to attack her, for her views & display her personal details on Twitter.

This is a pattern of unacceptable, offensive harassment and abuse.

Lewis is a bully who when he cannot get his own way chooses to attack one women rather than direct his energy to his so called campaign.

SSW have lost my complete support - I originally signed one of the petitions. I will now be writing to the church and Southwark to make my views known.

I am also disappointed that the Ivy House are giving Lewis a stage this evening, especially as they are a co-operatively owned pub.

[Otta]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lewis Schaffer has again posted my full name on

> Twitter.

>

> Because he is banned from here he is now

> responding to my posts on here on Twitter, and

> again linking them to The Goose Is Out.

>

That is so out of order. I genuinely thought Lewis wad kind of using this whole thing for comedy, but the guy is being way too personal.

Being as he seems completely incapable of having a word with himself, perhaps other members of SSW could reign him in. As I said pages ago, he is doing your cause absolutely no good at all. Just the opposite in fact.

[dbboy]

Is the benefit really a wake after their recent tree funeral for a fictitious wood to raise money.

Time he was recorded to the Police for harassment.

[Sue]

I am going to get legal advice.

[mynamehere]

I read the exchange that keeps some of you forever writing here endless loopy tosh: no legal case to answer, a tempest in a teapot. Everyone go home, nothing to see. Except, except the reality of 10 million pounds and more that will be spent on cement and diggers where nothing at all was needed no bones disturbed no trees felled no birds and bats and an infinity of insects displaced. Cemeteries are the very last place inner-city councils can just leave alone. The only place sentient creatures can wander and pretend they are alone for a few moments. As much as the dead think they must prefer to be left in peace.